“When [committee members] are comparing and contrasting teams, part of it will be the elements that go into a schedule,” he said. “It’s probably not going to be very satisfying to a lot of the analytics community that wants formulas. ‘We looked at Stanford’s schedule and it was 46.45 and Alabama’s was 46.34, so then Stanford’s is better.’ We’re not looking at it that way, and the committee’s not looking at it that way.
“… We could build a fancy algorithm, but kind of how the Supreme Court said you know pornography when you see it, you just know a hard schedule when you see it.”
That quote isn’t from Bill Hancock, or one of the committee members. It’s from Stephen Prather, the guy who’s providing the committee with its data. The stat geek, in other words.
We’ve gone from relying on computer models for which the specifics were kept undisclosed to relying on people for whom we’ll never really know what specific data swayed them in deciding on which four football teams are most deserving of appearing in a national semi-final. (Notice I didn’t use the word “best”.) I’m not seeing where that’s really much of an improvement. And at least you can’t lobby a computer.
I mockingly noted in a Twitter discussion today that it’s all good because Jeff Long has repeatedly assured us that the selection process will be transparent. There’s a certain sense of being detached from reality for a guy with his management track record to insist that he knows everything will work.